Judge dismisses felony charges against Michigan alternate electors; defense attorneys call prosecution ‘lawfare’

A Lansing district court judge dismissed all criminal charges against 16 Republican alternate electors who signed a contingent certificate after the 2020 presidential election, and defense attorneys told the Michigan House Oversight Subcommittee on Weaponization of State Government that the prosecution was a politically motivated use of prosecutorial power.

Kevin Kajewski, an attorney who represented Clifford Frost and a Republican candidate for Michigan attorney general, said on behalf of his client that Judge Kristen Simmons ruled on Sept. 9, 2025, there was "insufficient probable cause to bind [the defendants] over for trial." Kajewski said the certificates signed Dec. 14, 2020, were contingent documents intended to preserve legal options during contested post-election litigation and that the prosecutors failed to prove the intent to defraud required under Michigan forgery statutes.

"This ruling not only vindicated my client, Mr. Frost, but exposed a troubling pattern of political weaponization in our state judicial system," Kajewski told the committee.

Nicholas Somberg, a criminal defense attorney who represented Michonne Maddock, described the dismissal at preliminary examination as an "extraordinary outcome," saying the prosecution had not met even the probable-cause standard. "There is no doubt that these people were innocent and that not even a crime occurred," Somberg told the subcommittee.

Both attorneys told committee members the prosecution relied on hearsay and mischaracterizations of the documents; they pointed to Michigan statutory provisions and federal law limiting which electoral certificates Congress may count. Kajewski cited state statutes governing selection and certification of electors (MCL 168.42, 168.45–168.47) and the federal Electoral Count Act (3 U.S.C. §§ 5, 6, 15) to argue the Republican contingent certificate lacked the governor's certification and therefore had no legal effect.

Attorneys also urged the committee to investigate what they described as politically timed and message-driven decisions by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel. The defense presented a clip played for the subcommittee of Nessel saying some defendants were "brainwashed," a remark the attorneys said demonstrated bias and undermined the stated elements the prosecution needed to prove. Kajewski and Somberg said federal and local prosecutors had previously declined to bring charges and questioned why the state attorney general pursued the matter in 2023.

The defense described the personal and financial costs for defendants: Somberg said some defendants and their families spent as much as "$250,000 to $300,000" mounting a defense; others faced employment and banking disruptions. Attorneys said one defendant, John Haggard, died hours after the dismissal; another filed a civil suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the attorney general and that separate civil litigation remains pending in Kent County alleging emotional harm.

Lawyers told the committee they saw this prosecution as precedent-setting and dangerous for political speech and participation if convictions were allowed based on contingent certificates that, by statute and federal practice, could not displace the governor-certified slate. Somberg said the prosecution "criminalized politics" and called for reforms including stronger prosecutor accountability, donor-protection measures and clearer rules for politically charged prosecutions.

Committee members asked witnesses about venue and timing; Kajewski and Somberg repeated that Ingham County prosecutors had declined to charge and that the attorney general had chosen to bring the case in Ingham County. Both witnesses described lengthy preliminary examinations—Somberg said his group had six days of testimony—and urged legislative reforms and oversight to prevent similar prosecutions in the future.

The subcommittee handled two routine motions during the hearing: Representative Shriver moved to adopt the minutes from the June 25 meeting, and the minutes were adopted with no objection; later, Representative Pawhuski moved to excuse absent members, and that motion also prevailed.

The hearing record is limited to testimony and committee questions; the state attorney general may still appeal the district court ruling. The defense attorneys asked the subcommittee to consider statutory or rule changes to increase accountability for prosecutors and to protect political speech and donors who fund legal defenses.